Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dismiss_findingC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the effect (suppression) but omits mutation details, reversibility, permissions, or side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  One sentence with no wasted words, but could be more structured with separate purpose and behavior sections. Still concise and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the operation's goal but lacks details on parameter sources, baseline concept, or outcome format.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the single sentence does not elaborate on runId, reason, or findingHash.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the tool adds a finding to a baseline to suppress it on future runs, matching the title 'Dismiss a finding'. Distinct from sibling tools like run_design_qa or check_tokens.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains what it does without comparing to siblings.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• check_tokensA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral context: it compares specific items, caps results at 50, includes severities, and reports unknown dimensions. Could mention read-only nature.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information. No filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and edge cases (not verified). Could note it's a check, not a modification.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The single parameter runId is fully described in the schema, and the description repeats that it comes from capture_design. Baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool compares design elements (colour, font size, etc.) against a token set and returns findings with details. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_design and capture_build by focusing on comparison.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  While the description implies use after capturing a build, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_design_qa or build_report.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• build_reportA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, but description adequately discloses key traits: self-contained, inlined images, offline-capable, shareable, returns absolute path. Lacks mention of file system side effects like overwriting.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with main action and key features.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and return value completely. No significant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% and provides a clear description of 'runId'. Description adds no extra parameter detail, so baseline score is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states verb 'Write' and resource 'self-contained HTML report with all images inlined, plus report.json'. It distinguishes from siblings focused on capture/QA by targeting report generation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the tool should be used after 'capture_design' (runId), but does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'run_design_qa' or state when not to use.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• capture_buildA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: reuses Chrome over CDP or copies profile, never asks for/stores credentials, defaults viewport to Figma frame width. However, it does not mention output format or error scenarios.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Four concise sentences front-loading the main purpose, with each sentence adding unique information. No redundancy or unnecessary content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  While it covers behavior and defaults, it omits expected output (no output schema) and prerequisites (e.g., Chrome availability). For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds value beyond schema: explains that viewportWidth defaults to the Figma frame width, and ties runId to capture_design. Schema coverage is 67%, so description compensates with useful context.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool measures the live page in the user's browser, piercing shadow DOM and same-origin iframes. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_design by specifying it captures the built page.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when measuring a live page after building, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_design_qa or build_report. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• run_design_qaA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the sequential execution and failure return, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., where the HTML report is stored), output on success, or potential rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details on execution and failure handling. Every sentence adds value, and it is efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (runs 4 sub-tools) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the sequence and failure return, but does not specify the success return value or where the HTML report is output. This leaves uncertainty for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context: 'Give it a Figma frame link' for figmaUrl, 'URL of the built page' for buildUrl, and mentions viewportWidth defaults to the Figma frame width. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'End-to-end design QA: measures a Figma frame and a live page, then writes an HTML report.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it runs a sequence of those tools (capture_design, capture_build, check_tokens, build_report) in one call.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Give it a Figma frame link and the URL of the built page.' It also explains the sequential execution and fallback behavior: 'On failure it returns the runId so the remaining steps can be run individually.' This helps the agent decide when to use this composite tool versus running individual steps.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• capture_designA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes the flattened node list to disk and returns a runId, and states 'Never returns the node tree.' This is good, but it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects beyond disk writes.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds important details about input formats and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, side effect (writes to disk), and output (runId). It mentions that the node tree is never returned, which helps manage expectations. Missing details like file format or location could be added, but overall it's adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'figma' can be a frame link or bare file key, and that 'nodeId' is optional if already in the link. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Fetch a Figma frame and derive its design token set.' It specifies inputs (Figma link or file key + nodeId) and outputs (runId, writes to disk). The verb 'capture' and resource 'design' are distinct from siblings like 'check_tokens' or 'capture_build'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Accepts a pasted Figma frame link or a bare file key plus nodeId,' providing clear input format guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'capture_build' or 'run_design_qa', nor does it mention when not to use it.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.